site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24831 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 29, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Saudi Arabia takes its biggest step yet into the biggest of culture war arenas:

EA Announces Agreement to be Acquired by PIF, Silver Lake, and Affinity Partners for $55 Billion

Electronic Arts has been bought up by the Saudi investment arm PIF, alongside Jared Kushner's Affinity Partners and PE giant Silver Lake. The trio paid $55Bn for EA, albeit in a leveraged buyout involving $20Bn of debt financing(!).

On the surface, nothing too interesting, perhaps another example of the incredible growth in private equity. And that might be all there is, just 3 funds thinking there is untapped potential in what was an often poorly run gaming giant. However, PIF is almost certainly the largest owner, and AP News identifies the deal as part of the Saudi strategy. I expect Kushner is either wetting his beak or acting as a lightning rod for the Saudis, while Silver Lake probably needed no encouragement to get in on the deal.

The Saudis appear to have identified major cultural industries in Sports and Gaming as prime opportunities for...something? "Sportswashing" makes sense for the tiny nations and city states like Qatar and Abu Dhabi which have no real power outside of their resources, but it's not clear what Saudi Arabia gains from pumping hundreds of billions into these industries. Much has been said of the desire of MBS to diversify Saudi Arabia, and at least with this deal there is room to move EA functions into the country, but it's a drop in the bucket. The leveraged nature of the deal is also unusual; that's the kind of option you typically pursue when asset stripping - neither the Saudis nor Silver Lake needs that kind of business.

For years, Andrew Wilson has been the most personally ambitious chief executive in the S&P 500. A self-made man, he went from small scale producer to CEO of EA, and then set about reverse-merging it into (or otherwise being acquired by) one of the major Hollywood conglomerates. From there, I imagine he would have gone for CEO of one of the FAANGs, or maybe the Magnificent 7 a few years later. Indeed he almost succeeded in becoming CEO of Disney, although Iger ultimately preferred a company man (and then latterly, of course, himself). He tried with several others.

That unachieved, he can at least facilitate (and make no mistake, this is all him) the largest LBO in history. I hope it makes him happy, though for men like him there is always another hill to climb.

Does EA even have something worth of buying? Bioware is dumpster fire, Battlefield time is long gone. And let alone for 60B.

Whoever from EA negotiated this deal deserves every cent and then a lot more. It will be a total disaster for the buyers.

The have licenses for most major sports titles? FIFA, Madden, NHL, CFB, F1. (Think of that microtransaction money flow)

That is also without mentioning the Star Wars license.

As far as I can tell the Star Wars license expired already in 2023.

Battlefield 6 actually looks like it's going to be a smash hit, based on how many people were playing the open beta a month ago. It basically feels like BF3 and BF4 again, instead of whatever crap they've been doing with the series in the last few years.

My understanding is they're still a market leader in sports games, like the yearly basketball or football tie-in game. Those don't have a great reputation among hardcore gamers, but the gaming market as a whole snatches them up.

Given the Saudis' love for buying up sports franchises, it's likely this had to do mostly with those titles and not a newfound passion for Mass Effect.

That's a lot of debt. EA has about $2 billion in annual operating cashflow (which will drop after the take-private because some of the $600 million or so in stock-based compensation will become cash bonuses) of which $250 million a year is being reinvested in the business (excluding major acquisitions, which EA seem to be dependent on). The reported profit after tax is $1.1 billion, with depreciation most of the difference. At a low-end LBO interest rate of SOFR+200, the interest on $20 billion in debt is going to $1.2 billion per year.

Absent another pandemic or other dramatic increase in revenue with minimal investment required to deliver it, EA are going to have to eat their seed corn in order to pay the interest. I wonder if JP Morgan are doing a favour for the Saudis by lending slightly too much on this one.

Sports franchise revenue (4 of the top 10 games sold every year are EA sports games, pretty much every year) is probably predictable enough to make them comfortable. This will look stupid eventually for the Saudis and Silver Lake, but for now I don’t think it’s a comically bad loan.

Saudis have dumped a ton of money into sports ventures like LIV golf and saudi league ft. ronaldo. They've also spent (a lot less) on esports/gaming such as the esports world cup where they crowned their own sponsored org as the victor two years in a row. The end goal, presumably, is to gain positive cultural influence in the west as opposed to simply oil, repressive islam, and terrorism. Maybe for pride as much as anything else.

It’s a play for hearts and minds of current young Americans, and it’s probably working. Youth today probably don’t think of Saudi Arabia in the same breath as Iran, and that’s what they want.

Question for investor types here: I bought several shares of EA right before the Battlefield 6 beta, with the expectation that the actual release (coming in a few weeks) would be a massive success and drive the stock up. This news about the company going private has already caused me to make 15-20% total gains. Better to sell now, or is the price EA will pay to buy me out likely even higher?

The price you get in a buyout is the price agreed upon in the deal. Which looks to be $210/share in cash. With the price being 202-ish right now, you are only looking at an $8 premium on waiting for the deal to conclude.

So yeah, if you just wait, you'll get paid out $210 per share. Why wouldn't you wait? Well, there could be legal challenges to draw the process out, or maybe stop it entirely. Maybe you have an investment you want to make right now that you think has a better return on investment. I had shares in Activision during Microsoft's buying, and I think I bailed at something like 90-95% of the buyout price because the lawsuits were just dragging out forever, and I wanted to take my money and run.

Thanks! I'll probably wait for the buyout then

You know, there are two stories about EA, and I don't know which one is true, or if it's a synthesis of both.

One is EA the strip mining vulture capitalist. Rolling up to independent studios with deals too good to refuse, and then putting them on permanent crunch status churning out mediocre sequels until the studio gets shut down.

The other is EA the naive savior of struggling independent studios. Studios that find themselves in over their heads, with cost running away from them, literally about to run out of money with their next opus still 6 months to year from release. So EA comes in, thinking if they give Lord British, Peter Molyneux or Chris Roberts a years worth of financing in exchange for ownership and some oversight, the ship could be righted.

In the 90's, I was 1000% on team Origin, Bullfrog, Westwood, etc.

After each of these luminaries ran their respective Kickstarter scams and mismanaged the projects to degrees that are legendary, I'm more sympathetic to EA.

Anyways, the point I'm eventually getting to, is I will laugh my ass off if EA turns out to be every bit the lemon to the Saudi's private equity firms as buying up Origin and Bullfrog were to EA in the 90's. Personally I can't remember the last time I bought an EA game, and it's hard to imagine anything about this acquisition making them worse. There might even be some upside! It's hard to imagine the Saudi's letting another game be as gay as Veilguard was.

Honestly I don’t mind EA as much as some of the other mega studios. They put out some decently fun Star Wars games, BioWare was BioWare’s own fault apparently, Apex is okay, Split Fiction and It Takes Two are examples of creative games rare elsewhere, their bombed games rarely break my heart. I’d like them to be a little looser with owned but semi dormant IP, but that’s every big company.

EA is the devil, I still have not forgivven them for doing in Westwood. It's a great pain to me they own the Battlefield franchise, I loved 1 & 2 myself. The new one looks promising but I'm waiting to see how they'll manage to fuck it up.

1

You mean 1942.

it's not that hard to count in battlefields: 1942, 2, 2142, 1943, 3, 4, 1, V, 2042, 6

At this point I'm almost expecting them to pull the 2010s most annoying fad and just name one "Battlefield" with no qualifiers so we have to start adding dates behind the dates to remain unambiguous.

I mean, they already did this in the 2010s with Battlefiled One, did they not? I don’t think it will happen again for a bit. Their next game is maybe 50% likely to be another Bad Company or Vietnam era one, 30% it’s a Cold War one, 20% something else (maybe 10% space age and 10% a 90s/2000s confused middle)

I think the answer is it is likely to be both. Small independent auteurs are notoriously bad at upscaling and dealing with success. Bailing them out to make mediocre sequels in a corporate environment is also a bad idea (from the point of view of quality video games). Let small studios churn and burn creating gems then destroying themselves as they get over-ambitious. At least sometimes you get some diamonds.

I'll take Kerberos as a relatively recent example (10 years ago ish). They made Sword of the Stars a 4X space sim, it was excellent for its budget and time. They did well and for the sequel promised the universe and delivered a buggy mess that did not do half the things they said it would (it is after a number of expansions and patches a solid game but still). You can manage ships in real time rotate them to switch armor facing, and armor is tracked per facing, and each weapon has a different penetration profile, and then outside the first few battles never have the time to do any of that because your fleets are too big. Each race has its own FTL method so they play very differently, but it was supposed to have espionage, political rivalries and much much more). If they were bought out after SotS1 (which was on the cards from Paradox I think, who in the end just became their publisher) I think the sequel would have been safer, less ambitious and probably at launch better (maybe laden down with 50 DLC's though) But shooting for the stars and mostly missing at least gave us something interesting. Where some of the game is like 10/10 and other parts are just..missing entirely.

I think that's sometimes better than 7/10 COD X In Space. or whatever.

sots1 was a buggy trashmess with broken damage profiles for their laser/missile/cannon mix. Kerberos had a grand vision and simply couldn't execute. a smaller scope might have worked better but then it'd have lost its magic.

however my own winner for overambitious nonsense is star citizen. it is the quintessential space sim, combining the worst of 90s suboptimal UI with 2000s busywork gameplay loop grind and 2010s predatory monetization. If there ever was a reason why a studio exec was necessary to keep a visionary in check, its anything to do with chris roberts. he shit the bed with freelancer being way too complex for no reason, and then developed star citizen in retaliation to fulfil his luke skywalker starfighter elite pilot roleplay fantasy, a fantasy shared by many a space nerd. whether people actually LIKE flying around in a claustrophobic cockpit in space flipping around the elliptical plane nauseatingly or spending 10 minutes travelling through jump gatea for the sake of "immersion" is secondary to roberts and his fans. what matters is that they get to pretend theyre really hanging out with luke about to take out the death star. a noble enough aim, save for the fact that they made flying a spaceship not fun at all.

Creativity is so idiosyncratic, I'm not sure you can ever distill any method or approach as yielding superior results to any other, because it's all just so dependent on the creatives involved, and the times they existed in.

That said, something clearly went very, very wrong with independent studios in the 90's. There seems to be a reoccurring theme where success begets failure. Where then a bunch of 20-something (probably autistic) manchildren find themselves with millions of dollars, they go down some incredibly terrible rabbit holes. They turn their offices into playgrounds, they endlessly chase some perfect creative vision, many lose the will to do actual work entirely.

I don't think it's as bad as the lottery curse or NFL millionaires. I think many of them walked away from the industry never having to worry about money again. But their successful creative prospects more or less died after their first life changing hit.

I think Westwood, Blizzard, Maxis and id Software held out the longest. I'm not sure why honestly. Possibly the 20-somethings who won the lottery were better prepared to handle the success. Which is not to say the quality of their games never tapered off. But you didn't see these catastrophic collapses the way you saw with Origin, Bullfrog, and others. Technically id Software still exists, if in a nakedly Ship of Theseus kind of way.

I think the 90's was the tipping point where a small number of people with a vision in gaming could do a lot with not a lot. (Arguably we are maybe returning to that with the advent of AI tools and the like?) I learned to program in Basic on a Commodore 64. I could in the 90's make simple games on a 386, that didn't look much off what professionals were doing. Soon after that, the number of people you needed would increase, and the amount of time I think.

So you got just got an expansion of who could get into being a game designer. But without necessarily having to have any kind of business acumen to run anything bigger than a few people working together. Maybe not just video games, Games Workshop was on the verge of collapse until it was bought out by management (rather than the designers) and turned in a more commercial direction in 91.

Creative Assembly is maybe the anti-example, founded in late 80's with a tiny workforce and increased in success until they could afford to do Shogun in 99. Bought out by Sega in 2005 after success with Medieval and Rome Total War which is when Tim Ansell got out. So he was able to scale it up from doing ports of MS-DOS games with 2 people to a hundred with 3 well regarded games under their belt when he sold it. Whether he could have scaled it to where they are today is an open question (though so to is whether Sega have been great at that either).

I think Westwood, Blizzard, Maxis and id Software held out the longest.

At least for id, I think it's in large part because Carmack is both a workaholic and a genius, so even as he was buying Ferraris and starting space companies he never stopped grinding away. He never really let himself rest on his laurels. Rage is probably the worst game they ever put out (prior to Carmack's departure), and it was half decent.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats